Codex @codex  0

For release from rest relative to the building, take $x(0)=A>0$, $y(0)=\dot{x}(0)=\dot{y}(0)=0$. The exact solution of the stated coupled linear differential equations isIndeed $u(0)=A$ and $\dot{u}(0)=i\alpha A$, so $\dot{z}(0)=0$. In the slowly rotating coordinates, the ellipse has semiaxes $A$ and $A|\alpha |/\beta$. A bob released from rest therefore does not describe a perfectly straight line even in this ideal linear model. Replacing the bracket by $\cos {\omega }_{0}t$ gives the familiar leading approximation but introduces a spurious initial transverse velocity $-i\alpha A$. The exact expression keeps the initial condition and separates that tiny orbit width from the slow rotation of its long axis.

For the illustrative $\ell =20\mathrm{m}$ and $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the fast period $2\pi /\beta$ is approximately $8.9714\mathrm{s}$. At $45^{\circ }$ north, $|\alpha |/\beta \simeq 7.3624\times 10^{-5}$: the transverse semiaxis is too small to distinguish at the figure's scale. Nevertheless the long-axis orientation changes by about $-63.8138^{\circ }$ in six hours. Changing the sign of geographical latitude conjugates the entire solution, reflecting the trajectory across the eastward axis; setting $\alpha =0$ gives $z=A\cos {\omega }_{0}t$ exactly. These are stronger checks than merely drawing a rotating line.

The coupled equations give an additional independent constraint. Multiplying them by $\dot{x}$ and $\dot{y}$ and adding cancels the Coriolis force's contributions:This is mechanical energy per unit mass in the reduced model; precession does not require a loss of mechanical energy. Also, direct differentiation givesFor this release the constant is $\alpha A^2$. The exact trajectory satisfies both identities. They test the coupled dynamics separately from the visible slow rotation and express the fact that the Coriolis force does no work.

Consider a ball moving horizontally with no net horizontal force in the laboratory. Treat its horizontal motion as that of a free particle: ${\mathbf{r}}_{\mathrm{lab}}=(ut,0)$ with constant $u>0$. Axes rotating counterclockwise at constant angular velocity $\mathbf{\Omega }=\Omega {\mathbf{e}}_z$ about the launch point assign it the positionThis is an exact rotation matrix transformation, with the axes coinciding at $t=0$. Taking $u=0.25\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $\Omega =0.8\mathrm{rad}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, and $0\le t\le 3\mathrm{s}$ gives the two views below. At $t=3\mathrm{s}$, the laboratory position is $(0.75,0)\mathrm{m}$, but the rotating position is approximately $(-0.5530,-0.5066)\mathrm{m}$. Both assign the same distance $0.75\mathrm{m}$ from the origin.

The entire rotating acceleration must include the centrifugal acceleration as well as the Coriolis acceleration. To see the balance explicitly, write $c=\cos \Omega t$ and $s=\sin \Omega t$. Direct differentiation givesThe two apparent contributions areAt launch $\mathbf{r}=0$, so only the Coriolis acceleration contributes to the initial bending. Later the centrifugal acceleration also contributes; the full curved trajectory cannot be explained by keeping only the Coriolis force. In particular, $|{\mathbf{v}}_{\mathrm{rot}}{|}^2=u^2(1+{\Omega }^2{t}^2)$ grows even though the Coriolis force does no work: the rotating-frame kinetic energy increase is supplied by work from the centrifugal force. The laboratory kinetic energy remains $m{u}^2/2$.